selfish_meme

Well that was premature.

Hmm it looks like you are using the Cheyenne tail of the B-17G (the one in the picture I posted) earlier B-17's had a different smaller rudder. - - - Updated - - - scratch that everything after the D used that tail

I feel like I am leading you down the wrong path, what version of the B-17 is it? That would determine some of the features. The picture I posted before is the best guide you can go by.

Mwahahahahaha

The tail section needs to come out past the turret, also that nosecone and no chin turret

I just had a frikken amazing idea about the panels now to wait till I can play.

I like that it has contrails - - - Updated - - - If you enjoyed that CommanderSpocks Ares V needs a going over, it's on my todo list

Hey you helped me with my Ares 1

Thats a lot of speculation, U5 will bring performance improvements, and adding new parts is not that much of an issue, it's only when they change physics. Like a new wing, would only add a tiny memory footprint but would not have any effect on the physics, where adding aerodynamics has a huge effect. I like that they have brought Nathan onboard to help quash old bugs, he has a lot of experience making RSS and can help with a lot of those things, getting Claw integrating his Stock Bug Fixes would be even better.

And the small jets?

My posts have what Squad said, not my speculations.

Yeah I checked his posts, he just randomly comes on for the last few years and drops a bomb on someones ship.

Don't worry about this guy, it looks like he is a necro-troll from the wilderness of the past, he doesn't produce anything or have ideas, he just criticises others. - - - Updated - - - You could try lights or solar panels to mimic windows at the front, that nosecone is probably the least B-17 looking thing, maybe clip a cupola in

I'm running 8GB on my Linux desktop and that runs EVE and Astronomers and about 15 other mods in under 6GB

This is also on the Official 1.1 blog announcement But NoMrBond says later that while physics is multithreaded, single ships will still be limited to a single core, other ships can be on other cores, this is what I read to be the case on the PhysX dev blog as well.

&%*#(#&

This is from the polar charity summary

Don't know about in FAR

Much less drag see here

This too excites me, though I usually stream KSP from my Linux box to my Macbook, I like to have a stock install on the macbook for emergencies

They have said the Flying Tigers guys have helped speed up their U5 port, which should bring some great advantages for all clients, so I m all for it. As it has resulted in a net gain for PC, rather than made the update lag longer. I personally don't think it's gonna be a big seller on console, but I don't have any figures or data to back that up. We all know there are bugs in the current game, and they should spend at least one release bug smashing, but I also know that many games have a shelf life. How long can Kerbal still be relevant? getting new content out is one way of keeping interest alive and I am personally looking forward to the new parts, especially the antennae.

I calculate that as only 10% cooler

50% of the time the tone of Internet communications is mistaken (I read this somewhere don't ask me to dig up a source). Kerbal is physics bound, meaning that the thing that determines performance more than anything is the physics thread. The physics is single threaded and as such bound to a single core. So the only thing that lets you add more parts (with physics, we will get back to that) without lag is a faster core. memory is important and KSP has some memory leaks that cause crashes, like scene changes, but the basic game uses 2.1GB which is easily available in most modern systems. On windows the most it can use is 3.5GB (because it is 32bit only). Some parts are essentially physicsless, in that they add their mass to the parent part and no other computation is done on them. Take the OXSTAT solar panels, you can put thousand on a craft and not really lag it, try a couple of hundred wing panels and you will have a totally different experience. So on your 64bit 6GB A8 system there will be plenty of RAM available for KSP, and no TSR is going to matter, you can easily see how much available RAM you have and as long as there is more than 3.5GB available then memory will not be an issue, until KSP hits it's own hard limit of 3.5GB and crashes. Your advice would be relevant for someone with 4GB of RAM and lower, but know also that the amount of RAM does not determine your FPS, instead that is bound by the speed of your core and the number and type of parts on your ship.

I would hold off on celebrating the multi cores for a single ship. That is not the way PhysX has been purported to run and they have said themselves high part ships still lag.

Updated the Delta II to the new one I made, the old one was unsuitable, now working on F%^^^$^$&^ Pathfinder again, multiple layers of chutes, solid rockets, thrusters, aeroshell, tether, balloons, what the hell NASA and then you go and make it a tetrahedron, that unfolds.